Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clearly you must have seen this quote earlier, so why have you been so stubborn in maintaining your claim that there was some sort of deception?
Yawn, do you ever check dates on material?. The explanation of the original graph and the new version where all the data is plotted comes 10 years after the deceptive graph was first published. It should also be note this was in response climategate and it never would have been released otherwise.
The following graph is an accurate depiction of Proxy data, is it fair and accurate depiction of global temperatures? Rightfully your answer is no so please explain why.
Actually Turbolocke, the image you are complaining over was properly linked to the reporting agency, you can see the default address in the image link itself and the images are freely distributed through hot linking.
There is no ToS violation concerning that. A ToS violation would be linking to a copyrighted image through a 3rd party such is often done by those linking wiki graphs are other types of graphs that were taken from another source and then displayed by another.
You're wrong: the law is more complex than you suggest. Everyone who posts other peoples' content without permission is risking getting this site DMCA'd.
ToS:
Quote:
As some examples of improper activities when accessing or using the Site, Services or Content, you agree that you shall not:
- Violate or infringe the rights of others including, without limitation, patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, publicity or other proprietary rights.
Actually Turbolocke, the image you are complaining over was properly linked to the reporting agency, you can see the default address in the image link itself and the images are freely distributed through hot linking.
There is no ToS violation concerning that. A ToS violation would be linking to a copyrighted image through a 3rd party such is often done by those linking wiki graphs are other types of graphs that were taken from another source and then displayed by another.
Most wiki graphs are public domain images, so it's ok to hotlink to them, though generally it's good practice to cite where you get them from.
The following graph is an accurate depiction of Proxy data, is it fair and accurate depiction of global temperatures? Rightfully your answer is no so please explain why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Not touching this with ten foot pole right?
Now you are really being funny. Of course it doesn't show global temperature. That's clear from the papers that it's supposed to represent. They show Northern Hemisphere reconstructions: (Yes I know: they hid it from you in the caption.)
What is the point that you're trying to make? Something you've swallowed from WUWT or CA? Or have you got something original to say?
I do hope it's not going to be something similar to: my thermometer has stopped working properly, so I have to reject all the data that it gave until now. Or I changed from a manual tide gauge to an electrical one and then to an automatic datalogger, so I can't tell you anything about about tides.
Yawn, do you ever check dates on material?. The explanation of the original graph and the new version where all the data is plotted comes 10 years after the deceptive graph was first published. It should also be note this was in response climategate and it never would have been released otherwise.
Let's take this slooowly for you tcm:
Jones in 2009 provides an explanation which shows there was no deception. He does this by explaining in detail the hows and the whys and the wherefores.
In brief:
- proxies were reliable until 1960, then they diverged from actual temperatures.
-Data for some proxies ended before 1999, so to bring the graph up to date accurate temperature data was used.
Now is there anyone who doesn't find that a normal thing to do. If you don't then explain why. Handwaving doesn't count.
All the elements that Jones explained in 2009 were available to a competent reader of the original document. You just had to follow the links given and read the flipping thing. Clearly this is too complicated for the deniers, which is why they claim there was a deception.
You're wrong: the law is more complex than you suggest. Everyone who posts other peoples' content without permission is risking getting this site DMCA'd.
ToS:
That is not a violation, but a warning that doing so "may" be an infringement. Look under hot linking.
The fact is, the image was directly from the UEA server and any idiot can look in the image link and see such.
This is not the same as the morons who post some link of some public share that has no manner to which one could even possibly find the source of the graph.
Most wiki graphs are public domain images, so it's ok to hotlink to them, though generally it's good practice to cite where you get them from.
Really, it's a good habit to cite your sources.
Wiki has a habit of having poorly cited material in the first place, which is why trying to track someones graph from them is a severe pain in the rear as half the time, the source often isn't even the proper agency to which it was initially pulled from.
My point with Turbo was that the link was directly off the UEA server itself to which their displayed data is commonly referenced as such. Turbo was simply making it an issue for other reasons.
I agree though, people should cite their sources. When I provide graphs, I only cite specifically when the image is not directly pulled from the hosting agency and can easily be identified with a simply URL evaluation. Not to mention, those types of images are often freely distributed anyway, its the actual raw data and methodology to which takes an army of FOIA to extract.
In brief:
- proxies were reliable until 1960, then they diverged from actual temperatures.
-Data for some proxies ended before 1999, so to bring the graph up to date accurate temperature data was used.
Now is there anyone who doesn't find that a normal thing to do. If you don't then explain why. Handwaving doesn't count.
All the elements that Jones explained in 2009 were available to a competent reader of the original document. You just had to follow the links given and read the flipping thing. Clearly this is too complicated for the deniers, which is why they claim there was a deception.
I don't think there was any deception; I don't doubt the papers explained there was a discrepancy. However, it does make me a bit skeptical of tree ring data.
Perhaps there's something specific to today's period (perhaps pollution ?) that's making trees grow slower. Or maybe not. Maybe any time it warms above a certain point tree rings grow slower. Then if it was as warm as today in the past, tree rings wouldn't show it.
Do you think this problem isn't an issue? Hopefully, there are other ways to reconstruct the past temperature that don't have this divergence problem.
Last edited by nei; 11-09-2011 at 06:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
